How Do You Prioritize The Qualities That Are Important When Buying A Handgun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For a self defense pistol I want a gun that fits my hand with natural sight alignment and a decent trigger. A gun that fires a cartridge of sufficient power, gives some confidence that it will go bang when I need it and will hit where I aim. One that conceals well for a carry gun but not too important for a house or car gun.

The problem with reliability is that a gun, like any other mechanical device, is reliable until it isn't. The more rounds you shoot the more likely something will break, wear out or fail.
 
Thank you to whoever changed my title
You're welcome. :D
....How do you decide which attribute is most important?

As an example when I'm looking at a handgun these qualities (in no particular order) have to be there.

Reliability
Concealablity
Capacity
Weight
Aftermarket support
Commonly available....
For a carry gun for me:
  • Reliability -- This one's first & non-negotiable. I know good and well that any machine can fail, and that includes my gun. That said, a pistol that I intend to carry has to have an established pattern of performance. I will not carry a gun that does a bunch of weird stuff at the range while I'm testing it.
  • Capacity & Caliber -- I more-or-less balance these against each other. I've settled on .38 Special, 9mm and .45 ACP for carry. My preference is for .45, but I've carried each of them from time to time. I'm OK with carrying 9mm, but I really should get more rounds from a comparably-sized pistol in the bargain. There are certainly other good chamberings out there, but I don't want to stock another caliber, and if I can't do my part with a .45, then carrying a Whizbang .50 was never going to make the difference. Why number 2 on my list? Because I want to carry a round: (1) with a known history of effective performance; (2) with a low enough price that I can afford to shoot a reasonable amount of practice ammo, and because reliability absolutely, positively has to be #1.
    • I typically carry ~20-25 rounds. When I carried a 1911, it was with 2 reloads (~24 rounds). When I moved to a G19, I carried one (~30 rounds). Now that I'm carrying a Shield 9, I carry two spares again (~24 rounds). I hope to be moving to a Shield 45 soon, and I expect to carry two spares (~22 rounds). I've been known to carry as few as 5 in an LCR revolver, but that's what I call the Saturday Morning Special.... perfect for Saturday morning errands.
  • Weight/Concealability -- These two go hand-in-hand in my mind. Smaller, more concealable pistols are lighter, generally speaking. The initial question, though, was "how do you decide," so here's how I arrived at this being #3 on the list: I like to carry the same pistol in the same place every day. In order to do that, given my lifestyle and ordinary attire, I need to carry something relatively small and light. My typical attire, which includes a suit or sport coat, will let me hide pretty much whatever I want, but the places that I go: (a) that require a coat; (b) are usually non-permissive (courtrooms).
  • Aftermarket support and commonly available -- For carry, it probably wouldn't dawn on me to carry something that wasn't commonly available or that was chambered in something that wasn't. Things that are commonly available tend to have more aftermarket support and are cheaper. I have a buddy who owns a pistol chambered in something like 7.62x25, but he says that ammo is ridiculously expensive. It's a range gun for him, and I'd love to go shoot it with him, but there's no way I'd carry something I couldn't afford to practice with, given any kind of choice in the matter.
 
I break it down like this:

1. Have a gun -this means the gun must be small enough and light enough to be easily concealable and not a pain to carry. It does me no good if I decided to leave it at home.

2. It must be reliable, because if I have to use it, it must go bang.

3. It must have low enough recoil for good, accurate, quick shot placement in my hands.

4. Penetration + expansion are the critical factors in handgun stopping power. So, tying #3 and #4 together: biggest hole + lowest recoil wins, when talking of caliber.

For me, in my hands, that sweet spot is usually some kind of tiny .380, which I can shoot well and which is loaded with one of the specialty self defense ammunition available today, which I have tested for reliable feeding and accuracy in my own gun. Some days it’s a .22 NAA revolver.
 
I don't think I've seen anyone say they chose a gun that had horrible ergonomics just because it was reliable.

There are so many good carry guns available today with such great ergonomics, and most with adjustable grips and such that I can't see why anyone couldn't find a good fit in a reasonable size with excellent reliability.
It's the idea that reliability is more important, like you said there are plenty of choices, it should meet 100% of the requirements to be accepted or it's rejected.
And there are plenty of fanbois that'll tell you, you should put up with their favorite brands crappy ergonomics because perfection.
 
#1. Is the gun comfortable for its intended use?
#2. Is gun accurate?
#3. Is gun reliable?
#4. Is ammo common?
#5. Does gun have enough magazine capacity for intended use?
That's my criteria regardless of what I'm looking at. The thing has to be comfortable or it's useless right out the gate.
If it isn't accurate it's scary worthless right out the gate.
 
Glock's "crappy ergonomics" fit me just fine, small hands & everything.
Of course..mine too. 'Other' fanboys will tell you their(SIG?) will do everything for you including making you breakfast in the morning..as long as it doesn't break first, as their 'involuntary recalls' imply....BUT Yelling about something so subjective never made sense to me...Glocks 'feel' great in my hand. Ruger, SIG, M&P, CZ, Beretta..didn't...

"tools not trophies"
 
For me, reliability is the first test. Without it, won't carry a given gun.
Then there it's how well I handle the particular gun. Put another way, do I shoot it well without a lot of conscience adaptation to the gun? Example, at the moment I'd rather carry my Shield than my Sig P365. Slightly less compact and a fewer rounds, but it still works better with my hands, my eyes, the way I shoot.
Another guy owning both might prefer the Sig.
In any case, it's a first-world problem given the reliability of and generally good overall accuracy of both.
 
The nice thing these days is that there is a HUGE selection of pistols that are very reliable. Don't like Glock? Get an M&P. Don't like those? Look at the XD line....CZ?....SR? .... and so on and so on.
Exactamundo……

And no one need be insulted because some people don't like a particular thing. I am genetically predisposed and behaviorally conditioned to despise Glocks because of my genetics and exercise regime makes my hands a certain way, and that particular digit disposition makes Glocks and a few other guns feel like crap in my mitts. That doesn't mean they are bad guns. I just don't buy them. But it also doesn't make my preference better or more enlightened than others, it just means I like other things.

Variety alone makes this a fantastic time to be a gun enthusiast. The number of well built and reliable guns out there of different shapes and sizes are amazing.
 
Last edited:
Like some others, I'm not a Glock guy. That doesn't mean I can't run one or think they're bad guns. I think they're very good guns, and I realize they changed the handgun world. They just don't work very well with my hands, my eyes, my preferences.
So if a given gun -- be it a S&W M&P series or a Sig or whatever -- works better for me, I'm going with that. And I do.
 
Honestly? None of the above.

I've said this before but apart from their utility for self defense I have zero interest in guns.
Beyond that I don't pay any more attention to my gun than I do my wallet.

Lots snipped..no disrespect, none, but you don't shoot 'for fun'? You do it as an obligation to ensure your firearm works and you are decent with it, but you view it as a chore to accomplish, a problem to solve?? Kinda like a 'job'?

NOTHING wrong with that but reading some of your posts(as a fellow colorado-er), it seems like you have more than a passing interest in things 'gun'...IMHO, of course.
 
but you don't shoot 'for fun'? You do it as an obligation to ensure your firearm works and you are decent with it, but you view it as a chore to accomplish, a problem to solve?? Kinda like a 'job'

First let me say I take no offense at your question.

but you don't shoot 'for fun'?

No, I do not view shooting as a recreational activity. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it it's just not something I do for kicks.

You do it as an obligation to ensure your firearm works and you are decent with it,

I do it because if God forbid I ever have to do it for real I want the odds stacked as heavily in my favor as I can get them.

but you view it as a chore to accomplish, a problem to solve?? Kinda like a 'job'

I don't view as a chore it's just not something I view as a "fun" activity.

NOTHING wrong with that but reading some of your posts(as a fellow colorado-er), it seems like you have more than a passing interest in things 'gun'...IMHO, of course.

I take a (little more than) passing interest in staying alive. Other than that I really don't have a bunch of interest in guns. That's why I don't have very many of them and that's also why I am almost positive that with the exception of my issue sidearm I haven't shot anything but my glock 26 or my Glock 19 in the last 3 years.
 
Part of mine is bang:$ ratio in accordance with the prior about reliability, etc. Glock draws me because they offer options and an abundant aftermarket support. If I could get a S&W MP9 I would but CA restricts us so choices are limiting. Sig is $$ though nice.
 
Thank you to whoever changed my title


I'm not sure exactly how to ask this question but let's assume you own no handguns at all and you want to buy one for self-defense.

How do you decide which attribute is most important?

As an example when I'm looking at a handgun these qualities (in no particular order) have to be there.

Reliability
Concealablity
Capacity
Weight
Aftermarket support
Commonly available

There are other things than those that I look for that I could list but after those six things everything else becomes pretty irrelevant.

There are also other things that I look for (commonality) that would be deal breakers for me but in my example I don't have any other guns so it's irrelevant.

Reliability is important. I won't carry a gun I don't trust but assuming I'm buying from one of the major manufacturers and I didn't get that 1 in 100,000 lemon reliability is a given.

Capacity is important. I said in the other thread that I won't carry less than 10 but the truth is if the choice is between carrying less than 10 and carrying nothing I'll carry less than 10.

Weight is a deal breaker for me. If the choice is between a heavy gun and no gun I'll carry a heavy gun but if the choice is between to similar guns one steel one polymer I'm carrying the polymer gun.

Concealablity is again important but realistically I have yet to meet a handgun (unless you get ridiculous and want me to conceal a Colt's Dragoon in a speedo) that I can't effectively conceal on my person.

Commonly available I'm not going to carry a CZ82 or a Tokerov or Makarov because they're "cool" hipster guns. If Walmart doesn't (before they went Bloomberg) carry the ammunition for I'm not buying it.

Aftermarket support is one of the big reasons I carry a Glock. I mean you could throw a rock and you're going to hit somebody that makes a holster for Glock or magazine or new barrel or an 80% lower.

So if I had to list them in order it would have to be

Reliability
Commonly available
Capacity
Weight
Concealablity
Aftermarket support.

No arguments from me.
 
To carry?
Im boring. Glock 19. Done.

Range toy?
Depends on what discipline I'm competing in.
 
Reliability is about the only thing I care about, with capacity not an issue as I only own one handgun with less than an 8 round capacity, except for my revolvers. Weight of a gun has never been any concern, and to be honest, unless it's a Desert Eagle, or some other huge hunk of steel, heavier is better. Make my guns steel, or at least a steel slide on an aluminum frame, and I'm a happy old man.
 
Reliability and how well I can shoot it. All those other things you can compensate for. None of the other things do any good for me if I can't shoot the gun well or if it's not reliable.
 
How Do You Prioritize The Qualities That Are Important When Buying A Handgun?

After having scanned the various responses, I decided to toss my thoughts on the fire just in case someone might find something worthwhile in the ensuing flames.

Something I didn’t see mentioned that for me is #1 on the list: Does it do the intended job? I like the “tool, not trophy” comment, and would enlarge that by saying that, as with any other tool purchase, I begin by carefully thinking about the job I need done, and what qualities a prospective tool must have in order to do that job well. With a handgun, caliber is at or near the top when considering suitability for a particular job. I wouldn’t go hog hunting with a Ruger Mk IV .22, and I wouldn’t take a youngster plinking with my Glock 20 10mm. Admittedly, there are other factors that affect the tool’s ability to perform the job, but caliber (likely within some range of options) is probably the most determinative factor. Capacity, for instance, affects suitability, even to the point of disqualifying some candidates, like a single-shot T/C, for jobs where at least something more than a single cartridge on board the firearm is deemed necessary. But that all said, we’ve got the first criterion. Does it do the job?

#2: Reliability. For some purchases, reliability becomes part of #1, above. My EDC choice at present is a Glock 43X. Reliability, expressed as Glock + trigger pull = bang, is tremendously important. To varying levels, the same can be said of other jobs I ask a gun to do. That hog hunter I mentioned above better be pretty reliable, too, for instance. And finally, there’s the simple fact that I really, really don’t like unreliable weaponry. Some of the bravest and craziest men ever were those who went to sea on US diesel subs in early WWII carrying torpedos that functioned properly about half the time. I don’t ever wanna have to hope that the tool will actually do its thing.

#3. Ergonomics. The gun has to fit the hand—re grip especially, but including things like trigger reach, mag release position, and more of the stuff that gets discussed ad nauseum.

#4. Commonality. By this I mean that the gun, and the ammo it uses, are common enough that access to parts, service, and more ammo are never an issue. Unless the actual job being performed is that of developing/testing new ideas/technologies, I don’t wanna have the latest and wanna-be-greatest thing in my hand or holster.

#5. Capacity. Number of rounds in the magazine isn’t unimportant, but it doesn’t vault ahead of other characteristics just to have more cartridges actually inside the machinery. Beyond some reasonable number—which, granted, can be different for different circumstances—higher capacity is just an attempt to assuage insecurity. I don’t ever wanna get shot/killed for lack of shooting back, but that’s why God made spare mags.

#6. Size/mass/concealability. By the time I get to thinking about these factors, the interplay amongst them all becomes obvious and important itself. Size and capacity obviously are highly correlated, and though some like to argue that any gun can be adequately concealed for EDC purposes, I suspect that there are at least as many people who snort at that idea, recognizing that workplace attire, life habits, body habitus, and more affect concealability and the convenience thereof. Size & mass also affect shooting characteristics, obviously, and we jump back up to consideration of getting the job done when we think about using a subcompact for, say, that hog-hunting expedition I mentioned.

#7. Brand. Yes, to some small extent at least, brand matters to me, in various ways. Reputation (see ‘reliability’, and other characteristics above), country of origin (I have a modest disinclination to purchase guns made in, say, China, or [insert eye roll here] North Korea), responsible behavior of the company and its cohorts, directors, etc., and more all will affect, to some small degree, the purchase. Even emotion. I’ve got a thing for certain types of guns, and it’s not always rational, but it’s there, I like it, and that’s all I’ve got to say about it.

Agree, Of course reliability, that is a taken.
Conceal ability is HIGH on my list for every day carry and and along with that goes size. Size and weight Matter. I want a small concealable firearm
Capacity-Not high on my list. Most firearms for EDC have 5 or more and believe that every day carry be practical and more focus on the first shots and drawing.
Brand-most good guns will be a good brand

Not mentioned-Longevity. No matter which gun I purchase it will one that can be shot often, over and over without failure or break down. Must be top materials. One of the very first things I look at are the Magazines. Some are TOP quality and so easy to see the difference. If a manufacture takes the care to put in a steel or metal follower for instance, chances are other components are not skimped on.
 
1. Performance.
2. Safety.
3. Performance.
4. Performance.
5. Performance.

Hitting a 4x4 block of wood 35 yards away, before my peers can, is priceless. Bowling pin matches. USPSA. Time it takes to draw and fire. Some performance attributes require a degree of reliability. I can fix everything else, but if I can't shoot well with it (like a j frame), then it's rubbish.

With a few tweaks, a Glock is the most comfortable pistol out there.
With a few tweaks, I can make a high quality 1911 as reliable as a Glock.

Capacity is mostly nonsense. I'll gladly run a piddly 7 shot mag in a 1911 that runs well. Glock 23 feeling a bit heavy? Yeah, I'll carry it with just 8 rounds like a 1911. Big deal.

My smallest CCW pistols lack performance. I feel inadequate with anything smaller than a Glock 23. Will I carry a Kahr p380? Sure, but I hate every minute of it.

Everything but performance and safety are trade offs, that I have to pick from.
 
So if I had to list them in order it would have to be

Reliability
Commonly available
Capacity
Weight
Concealablity
Aftermarket support.

EFFECTIVENESS
GOOD list, but I would add the category of effectiveness. A .22 or .25, for example, might meet all of your criterion, but not be sufficient for its intended purpose. My minimum would be a .380.

RELIABILTY
A good rule, taught to me at an early age, is to always buy the best you can when buying guns or tires. So, in this case being a "brand name snob" is not necessarily a bad thing. My favorite brands are Glock, SiG, and FN. Put this under reliability.

SIZE/CAPACITY
I like to carry concealed - so size matters. My first two choices would be a Glock 42 or a SiG 365. I would not feel under gunned with a snub nosed revolver. Six rounds would be a minimum. 10 or more ideal. Would not use a less common caliber. .327, .357, 380, 9mm, .45, or .44 would be fine.

WEIGHT
As far as weight goes I would shy way from all steel construction. Over time weight does matter.

SUPPORT
My experience with Glock has been excellent, with SiG fair at best, and (probably the best scenario) I have required ZERO interaction with FN. I would not prefer a Taurus, Rossi, and etc.
 
First let me say I take no offense at your question.



No, I do not view shooting as a recreational activity. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it it's just not something I do for kicks.



I do it because if God forbid I ever have to do it for real I want the odds stacked as heavily in my favor as I can get them.



I don't view as a chore it's just not something I view as a "fun" activity.



I take a (little more than) passing interest in staying alive. Other than that I really don't have a bunch of interest in guns. That's why I don't have very many of them and that's also why I am almost positive that with the exception of my issue sidearm I haven't shot anything but my glock 26 or my Glock 19 in the last 3 years.
We're just coming at it from different places. I am a self admitted gun nut. I enjoy the history and evolutionary aspects and like most disciplines. I get just as much enjoyment from shoot In SASS as I do IDPA or Sporting Clays or PRS. To be honest I'm not sure there's anything more enjoyable than chasing a soda can with a 22 lr. The ability to defend myself is more of a bonus to me.
If you're just concerned with SD then sure reliability is of up most importance but chasing a soda can I can live with a failure to fire or stove pipe occasionally.
 
For home defense, I find reliability and capacity to be important. Any revolver, shotgun and rifle will work.

For concealed carry, I’ll take reliability, availability of holsters, capacity and practicality. Many pistols I have will work, particularly in the Glock variety. For revolvers, Snubbies are more practical. Large revolvers such as an X fram will require a chest holster. One revolver that I struggle with, though I love, is the Chiappa Rhino 60DS 6 Shot 357 Magnum since it has rails on top and bottom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top